Monday, November 24, 2008

I sent this letter to NZ Herald last week, knowing that Watercare had publicly notified its consent application to discharge sewage biosolids into Puketutu, on the Monday after the General Election. Sure - this complies with the letter of the law - but the public now have just a few days before Christmas to lodge an appeal....

"...The public interest is poorly served when expediency and cost minimisation drive major public infrastructure decisions.

In newspaper notices published the Monday after an exciting election, Watercare notified its intention to dump sewage sludge from the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant onto Puketutu Island in Manukau Harbour. Submissions will close a few days before Christmas.

Modern cities around the world keep trade waste chemicals out of sewage pipes, and apply treated sewage back to land where the nutrients can be reused. Landfilling of biosolids is mostly not permitted.

There’s a whiff of wishful thinking in Watercare’s claim that its proposed Puketutu Sewage Landfill is a land rehabilitation project that will eventually become a park promised to Auckland Regional Council. Auckland’s City Councils own Watercare and presumably supported this proposal at a confidential meeting.

But it’s actually a cheap dump that will belch methane for decades, just as Watercare’s sewage landfills do today on the edge of the Manukau.

We would not allow a private operator to do this. Auckland's public services can do better...."

Letter sent to Herald after ARC consideration of what to do with Queens Wharf. ARC voted to support a Cruise Terminal and general cargo, and limited public access.... I argued for a mixed use development there, integrated with opened up ferry terminal infrastructure, and significant public open spaces at the end. I also presented images showing how ARC had failed the public in consenting the monstrosity on Princes Wharf....

"...I am very dissappointed by Auckland Regional Council’s limited approach to the Queens Wharf opportunity. At the confidential meeting I advocated for the broader public interest and an urban design led approach. But to little avail.

ARC’s involvement in the redevelopment of other Auckland waterfront opportunities has been a public disaster.

It was ARC’s responsibility to balance public and private interests on Princes Wharf. It is a disgrace that this opportunity has such impoverished public spaces.

ARC’s poor appreciation of urban design and the qualities of good waterfront open space is exemplified by the plans it agreed for Wynyard Quarter which are being considered now. Those plans shoehorn public waterfront amenity between maritime industry and highrise private developments. And this to optimise revenue for ARC.

ARC's ability to provide for public interest values is compromised by its need for cash to fund public transport, and its limited understanding of good urban design.

Auckland’s CBD and its waterfront must be optimised for the enjoyment of the people of Auckland, and for visitors. Queen Street and Britomart urban design approaches show the way. This thinking needs to cross the street and illuminate plans for Queens Wharf and the whole Auckland waterfront...."

Letter sent to NZ Herald, early October this year, after an editorial piece critical of proposals to run public transport across the proposed Te Whero Bridge, from Wynyard Quarter to Auckland....

"...Methinks your editorial misses the point by focussing on buses as the cause of civic vandalism on Auckland’s waterfront.

Public transport is just one symptom of Auckland Regional Council’s directive that “revenue should be optimised” from development on its Wynyard Quarter land holdings.

The Royal Commission were advised that “this large area of land is to be redeveloped into a world-class waterfront suburb” by Auckland Regional Holdings - the entity required to implement ARC’s directive.

Revenue optimisation means this “suburb” has to be crammed with apartments and high rise offices, with good public transport services of course.

Auckland’s waterfront public realm will suffer far more from over-development, than it will from buses. A little was learned from Princes Wharf when the Viaduct was redeveloped. But it caters for sunset drinkers and offers little to the broad Auckland demographic.

Auckland’s waterfront vandalism will only stop when redevelopment decisions put public amenity ahead of revenue optimisation...."

Monday, November 24, 2008

I sent this letter to NZ Herald last week, knowing that Watercare had publicly notified its consent application to discharge sewage biosolids into Puketutu, on the Monday after the General Election. Sure - this complies with the letter of the law - but the public now have just a few days before Christmas to lodge an appeal....

"...The public interest is poorly served when expediency and cost minimisation drive major public infrastructure decisions.

In newspaper notices published the Monday after an exciting election, Watercare notified its intention to dump sewage sludge from the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant onto Puketutu Island in Manukau Harbour. Submissions will close a few days before Christmas.

Modern cities around the world keep trade waste chemicals out of sewage pipes, and apply treated sewage back to land where the nutrients can be reused. Landfilling of biosolids is mostly not permitted.

There’s a whiff of wishful thinking in Watercare’s claim that its proposed Puketutu Sewage Landfill is a land rehabilitation project that will eventually become a park promised to Auckland Regional Council. Auckland’s City Councils own Watercare and presumably supported this proposal at a confidential meeting.

But it’s actually a cheap dump that will belch methane for decades, just as Watercare’s sewage landfills do today on the edge of the Manukau.

We would not allow a private operator to do this. Auckland's public services can do better...."

Letter sent to Herald after ARC consideration of what to do with Queens Wharf. ARC voted to support a Cruise Terminal and general cargo, and limited public access.... I argued for a mixed use development there, integrated with opened up ferry terminal infrastructure, and significant public open spaces at the end. I also presented images showing how ARC had failed the public in consenting the monstrosity on Princes Wharf....

"...I am very dissappointed by Auckland Regional Council’s limited approach to the Queens Wharf opportunity. At the confidential meeting I advocated for the broader public interest and an urban design led approach. But to little avail.

ARC’s involvement in the redevelopment of other Auckland waterfront opportunities has been a public disaster.

It was ARC’s responsibility to balance public and private interests on Princes Wharf. It is a disgrace that this opportunity has such impoverished public spaces.

ARC’s poor appreciation of urban design and the qualities of good waterfront open space is exemplified by the plans it agreed for Wynyard Quarter which are being considered now. Those plans shoehorn public waterfront amenity between maritime industry and highrise private developments. And this to optimise revenue for ARC.

ARC's ability to provide for public interest values is compromised by its need for cash to fund public transport, and its limited understanding of good urban design.

Auckland’s CBD and its waterfront must be optimised for the enjoyment of the people of Auckland, and for visitors. Queen Street and Britomart urban design approaches show the way. This thinking needs to cross the street and illuminate plans for Queens Wharf and the whole Auckland waterfront...."

Letter sent to NZ Herald, early October this year, after an editorial piece critical of proposals to run public transport across the proposed Te Whero Bridge, from Wynyard Quarter to Auckland....

"...Methinks your editorial misses the point by focussing on buses as the cause of civic vandalism on Auckland’s waterfront.

Public transport is just one symptom of Auckland Regional Council’s directive that “revenue should be optimised” from development on its Wynyard Quarter land holdings.

The Royal Commission were advised that “this large area of land is to be redeveloped into a world-class waterfront suburb” by Auckland Regional Holdings - the entity required to implement ARC’s directive.

Revenue optimisation means this “suburb” has to be crammed with apartments and high rise offices, with good public transport services of course.

Auckland’s waterfront public realm will suffer far more from over-development, than it will from buses. A little was learned from Princes Wharf when the Viaduct was redeveloped. But it caters for sunset drinkers and offers little to the broad Auckland demographic.

Auckland’s waterfront vandalism will only stop when redevelopment decisions put public amenity ahead of revenue optimisation...."

New Postings: Email Update

About Me

Enjoy the challenges of planning, especially urban planning, and the process of engaging with its endless problems. No easy solutions here! Unlike my earlier life in physics - but then, again, maybe its solutions are like sticking plaster. Previous life for 12 years as elected councillor in Auckland local government. Re-qualified at University of Auckland as urban planner. Now senior policy analyst at NZ Planning Institute.